US Supreme Court: 04-1506

8/14/2019 US Supreme Court: 04-1506

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-supreme-court-04-1506 1/25

1(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2005

Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as isbeing done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has beenprepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMANSERVICES ET AL. v. AHLBORN

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUITNo. 04–1506. Argued February 27, 2006—Decided May 1, 2006

Federal Medicaid law requires participating States to “ascertain the

legal liability of third parties . . . to pay for [an individual benefits re-

cipient’s] care and services available under the [State’s] plan,” 42

U. S. C. §1396a(a)(25)(A); to “seek reimbursement for [medical] assis-

tance to the extent of such legal liability,” 1396a(a)(25)(B); to enact

“laws under which, to the extent that payment has been made . . . for

medical assistance for health care items or services furnished to an

individual, the State is considered to have acquired the rights of such

individual to payment by any other party for such health care items

or services,” §1396a(a)(25)(H); to “provide that, as a condition of

[Medicaid] eligibility . . . , the individual is required . . . (A) to assignthe State any rights . . . to payment for medical care from any third

party; . . . (B) to cooperate with the State . . . in obtaining [such]

payments . . . and . . . (C) . . . in identifying, and providing informa-

tion to assist the State in pursuing, any third party who may be li-

able,” 1396k(a)(1). Finally, “any amount collected by the State under

an assignment made” as described above “shall be retained by the

State . . . to reimburse it for [Medicaid] payments made on behalf of”

the recipient. §1396k(b). “[T]he remainder of such amount collected

shall be paid” to the recipient. Ibid. Acting pursuant to its under-

standing of these provisions, Arkansas passed laws under which,

when a state Medicaid recipient obtains a tort settlement following

payment of medical costs on her behalf, a lien is automatically im-

posed on the settlement in an amount equal to Medicaid’s costs.

When that amount exceeds the portion of the settlement representingmedical costs, satisfaction of the State’s lien requires payment out of

proceeds meant to compensate the recipient for damages distinct



2 ARKANSAS DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVS. v.AHLBORN

Syllabus from medical costs, such as pain and suffering, lost wages, and loss of

future earnings.

Following respondent Ahlborn’s car accident with allegedly negli-

gent third parties, petitioner Arkansas Department of Health Ser-

vices (ADHS) determined that Ahlborn was eligible for Medicaid and

paid providers $215,645.30 on her behalf. She filed a state-court suit

against the alleged tortfeasors seeking damages for past medical

costs and for other items including pain and suffering, loss of earn-

ings and working time, and permanent impairment of her future

earning ability. The case was settled out of court for $550,000, which

was not allocated between categories of damages. ADHS did not par-

ticipate or ask to participate in the settlement negotiations, and did

not seek to reopen the judgment after the case was dismissed, but did

intervene in the suit and assert a lien against the settlement pro-ceeds for the full amount it had paid for Ahlborn’s care. She filed this

action in Federal District Court seeking a declaration that the State’s

lien violated federal law insofar as its satisfaction would require de-

pletion of compensation for her injuries other than past medical ex-

penses. The parties stipulated, inter alia, that the settlement

amounted to approximately one-sixth of the reasonable value of Ahl-

born’s claim and that, if her construction of federal law was correct,

ADHS would be entitled to only the portion of the settlement

($35,581.47) that constituted reimbursement for medical payments

made. In granting ADHS summary judgment, the court held that

under Arkansas law, which it concluded did not conflict with federal

law, Ahlborn had assigned ADHS her right to recover the full amount

of Medicaid’s payments for her benefit. The Eighth Circuit reversed,

holding that ADHS was entitled only to that portion of the settlementthat represented payments for medical care.

Held: Federal Medicaid law does not authorize ADHS to assert a lien

on Ahlborn’s settlement in an amount exceeding $35,581.47, and the

federal anti-lien provision affirmatively prohibits it from doing so.

Arkansas’ third-party liability provisions are unenforceable insofar

as they compel a different conclusion. Pp. 9–23.

(a) Arkansas’ statute finds no support in the federal third-party li-

ability provisions. That ADHS cannot claim more than the portion of

Ahlborn’s settlement that represents medical expenses is suggested

by §1396k(a)(1)(A), which requires that Medicaid recipients, as a

condition of eligibility, “assign the State any rights . . . to payment for

medical care from any third party” (emphasis added), not their rights

to payment for, e.g., lost wages. The other statutory language ADHS

relies on is not to the contrary, but reinforces the assignment provi-sion’s implicit limitation. First, statutory context shows that

§1396a(a)(25)(B)’s requirement that States “seek reimbursement for

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/$35,581.47




3Cite as: 547 U. S. ____ (2006)

Syllabus

[medical] assistance to the extent of such legal liability” refers to “the

legal liability of third parties . . . to pay for care and services available

under the plan,” §1396a(a)(25)(A) (emphases added). Here, because

the tortfeasors accepted liability for only one-sixth of Ahlborn’s over-

all damages, and ADHS has stipulated that only $35,581.47 of that

sum represents compensation for medical expenses, the relevant “li-

ability” extends no further than that amount. Second,

§1396a(a)(25)(H)’s requirement that the State enact laws giving it

the right to recover from liable third parties “to the extent [it made]

payment . . . for medical assistance for health care items or services

furnished to an individual” does not limit the State’s recovery only by

the amount it paid out on the recipient’s behalf, since the rest of the

provision makes clear that the State must be assigned “the rights of

[the recipient] to payment by any other party for such health careitems or services.” (Emphasis added.) Finally, §1396k(b)’s require-

ment that, where the State actively pursues recovery from the third

party, Medicaid be reimbursed fully from “any amount collected by

the State under an assignment” before “the remainder of such

amount collected” is remitted to the recipient does not show that the

State must be paid in full from any settlement. Rather, because the

State’s assigned rights extend only to recovery of medical payments,

what §1396k(b) requires is that the State be paid first out of any

damages for medical care before the recipient can recover any of her

own medical costs. Pp. 9–13.

(b) Arkansas’ statute squarely conflicts with the federal Medicaid

law’s anti-lien provision, §1396p(a)(1), which prohibits States from

imposing liens “against the property of any individual prior to his

death on account of medical assistance paid . . . on his behalf underthe State plan.” Even if the State’s lien is assumed to be consistent

with federal law insofar as it encumbers proceeds designated as

medical payments, the anti-lien provision precludes attachment or

encumbrance of the remainder of the settlement. ADHS’ attempt to

avoid the anti-lien provision by characterizing the settlement pro-

ceeds as not Ahlborn’s “property,” but as the State’s, fails for two rea-

sons. First, because the settlement is not “received from a third

party,” as required by the state statute, until Ahlborn’s chose in ac-

tion has been reduced to proceeds in her possession, the assertion

that any of the proceeds belonged to the State all along lacks merit.

Second, the State’s argument that Ahlborn lost her property rights in

the proceeds the instant she applied for medical assistance is incon-

sistent with the creation of a statutory lien on those proceeds: ADHS

would not need a lien on its own property. Pp. 13–17.

(c) The Court rejects as unpersuasive ADHS’ and the United

States’ arguments that a rule permitting a lien on more than medical




Syllabus damages ought to apply here either because Ahlborn breached her

duty to “cooperate” with ADHS or because there is an inherent dan-

ger of manipulation in cases where the parties to a tort case settle

without judicial oversight or input from the State. As

§1396k(a)(1)(C) demonstrates, the duty to cooperate arises princi-

pally, if not exclusively, in proceedings initiated by the State to re-

cover from third parties. In any event, the aspersions cast upon Ahl-

born are entirely unsupported; all the record reveals is that ADHS

neither asked to be nor was involved in the settlement negotiations.

Whatever the bounds of the duty to cooperate, there is no evidence

that it was breached here. Although more colorable, the alternative

argument that a rule of full reimbursement is needed generally to

avoid the risk of settlement manipulation also fails. The risk that

parties to a tort suit will allocate away the State’s interest can beavoided either by obtaining the State’s advance agreement to an allo-

cation or, if necessary, by submitting the matter to a court for deci-

sion. Pp. 17–19.

(d) Also rejected is ADHS’ contention that the Eighth Circuit ac-

corded insufficient weight to two decisions by the Departmental Ap-

peals Board (Board) of the federal Department of Health and Human

Services (HHS) rejecting appeals by two States from denial of reim-

bursement for costs they paid on behalf of Medicaid recipients who

had settled tort claims. Although HHS generally has broad regula-

tory authority in the Medicaid area, the Court declines to treat the

Board’s reasoning in those cases as controlling because they address a

different question from the one posed here, make no mention of the

anti-lien provision, and rest on a questionable construction of the

federal third-party liability provisions. Pp. 19–23.397 F. 3d 620, affirmed.

STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.



_________________

_________________

1Cite as: 547 U. S. ____ (2006)

Opinion of the Court

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in thepreliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested tonotify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash-ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in orderthat corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 04–1506

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN

SERVICES, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. HEIDI AHLBORN

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

[May 1, 2006]JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court.

When a Medicaid recipient in Arkansas obtains a tort

settlement following payment of medical costs on her

behalf by Medicaid, Arkansas law automatically imposes a

lien on the settlement in an amount equal to Medicaid’s

costs. When that amount exceeds the portion of the set-

tlement that represents medical costs, satisfaction of the

State’s lien requires payment out of proceeds meant to

compensate the recipient for damages distinct from medi-cal costs—like pain and suffering, lost wages, and loss of

future earnings. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth

Circuit held that this statutory lien contravened federal

law and was therefore unenforceable. Ahlborn v. Arkan-

sas Dept. of Human Servs., 397 F. 3d 620 (2005). Other

courts have upheld similar lien provisions. See, e.g.,

Houghton v. Dept. of Health, 2002 UT 101, 57 P. 3d 1067;

Wilson v. Washington, 142 Wash. 2d 40, 10 P. 3d 1061

(2000) (en banc). We granted certiorari to resolve the

conflict, 545 U. S. ___ (2005), and now affirm.

IOn January 2, 1996, respondent Heidi Ahlborn, then a




Opinion of the Court19-year-old college student and aspiring teacher, suffered

severe and permanent injuries as a result of a car acci-

dent. She was left brain damaged, unable to complete her

college education, and incapable of pursuing her chosen

career. Although she possessed a claim of uncertain value

against the alleged tortfeasors who caused her injuries,

Ahlborn’s liquid assets were insufficient to pay for her

medical care. Petitioner Arkansas Department of Health

Services (ADHS) accordingly determined that she was

eligible for medical assistance and paid providers

$215,645.30 on her behalf under the State’s Medicaid

plan. ADHS required Ahlborn to complete a questionnaire

about her accident, and sent her attorney periodic letters

advising him about Medicaid outlays. These letters noted

that, under Arkansas law, ADHS had a claim to reim-

bursement from “any settlement, judgment, or award”

obtained by Ahlborn from “a third party who may be liable

for” her injuries, and that no settlement “shall be satisfied

without first giving [ADHS] notice and a reasonable op-

portunity to establish its interest.”1 ADHS has never

asserted, however, that Ahlborn has a duty to reimburse it

out of any other subsequently acquired assets or earnings.On April 11, 1997, Ahlborn filed suit against two alleged

tortfeasors in Arkansas state court seeking compensation

for the injuries she sustained in the January 1996 car

accident. She claimed damages not only for past medical

costs, but also for permanent physical injury; future medi-

cal expenses; past and future pain, suffering, and mental

anguish; past loss of earnings and working time; and

permanent impairment of the ability to earn in the future.

ADHS was neither named as a party nor formally noti-

fied of the suit. Ahlborn’s counsel did, however, keep

ADHS informed of details concerning insurance coverage

——————

1 Affidavit of Wayne E. Olive, Exhs. 5 and 6 (Mar. 6, 2003).



3Cite as: 547 U. S. ____ (2006)


as they became known during the litigation.

In February 1998, ADHS intervened in Ahlborn’s law-

suit to assert a lien on the proceeds of any third-party

recovery Ahlborn might obtain. In October 1998, ADHS

asked Ahlborn’s counsel to notify the agency if there was a

hearing in the case. No hearing apparently occurred, and

the case was settled out of court sometime in 2002 for a

total of $550,000. The parties did not allocate the settle-

ment between categories of damages. ADHS did not par-

ticipate or ask to participate in settlement negotiations.

Nor did it seek to reopen the judgment after the case had

been dismissed. ADHS did, however, assert a lien againstthe settlement proceeds in the amount of $215,645.30—

the total cost of payments made by ADHS for Ahlborn’s

care.

On September 30, 2002, Ahlborn filed this action in the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of

Arkansas seeking a declaration that the lien violated the

federal Medicaid laws insofar as its satisfaction would

require depletion of compensation for injuries other than

past medical expenses. To facilitate the District Court’s

resolution of the legal questions presented, the parties

stipulated that Ahlborn’s entire claim was reasonablyvalued at $3,040,708.18; that the settlement amounted to

approximately one-sixth of that sum; and that, if Ahlborn’s

construction of federal law was correct, ADHS would be

entitled to only the portion of the settlement ($35,581.47)

that constituted reimbursement for medical payments

made. See App. 17–20.

Ruling on cross-motions for summary judgment, the

District Court held that under Arkansas law, which it

concluded did not conflict with federal law, Ahlborn had

assigned to ADHS her right to any recovery from the

third-party tortfeasors to the full extent of Medicaid’s

payments for her benefit. Accordingly, ADHS was entitledto a lien in the amount of $215,645.30.






Opinion of the CourtThe Eighth Circuit reversed. It held that ADHS was

entitled only to that portion of the judgment that repre-

sented payments for medical care. For the reasons that

follow, we affirm.

II

The crux of the parties’ dispute lies in their competing

constructions of the federal Medicaid laws. The Medicaid

program, which provides joint federal and state funding of

medical care for individuals who cannot afford to pay their

own medical costs, was launched in 1965 with the enact-

ment of Title XIX of the Social Security Act (SSA), asadded 79 Stat. 343, 42 U. S. C. §1396 et seq. (2000 ed. and

Supp. III). Its administration is entrusted to the Secre-

tary of Health and Human Services (HHS), who in turn

exercises his authority through the Centers for Medicare

and Medicaid Services (CMS).2

States are not required to participate in Medicaid, but

all of them do. The program is a cooperative one; the

Federal Government pays between 50% and 83% of the

costs the State incurs for patient care,3 and, in return, the

State pays its portion of the costs and complies with cer-

tain statutory requirements for making eligibility deter-

minations, collecting and maintaining information, and

administering the program. See §1396a.

One such requirement is that the state agency in charge

of Medicaid (here, ADHS) “take all reasonable measures to

ascertain the legal liability of third parties . . . to pay for

care and services available under the plan.”

§1396a(a)(25)(A) (2000 ed.).4 The agency’s obligation

——————

2 Until 2001, CMS was known as the Health Care Financing Admini-

stration or HCFA. See 66 Fed. Reg. 35437.3 The exact percentage of the federal contribution is calculated pursu-

ant to a formula keyed to each State’s per capita income. See 42U. S. C. §1396d(b).

4 A “third party” is defined by regulation as “any individual, entity or



5Cite as: 547 U. S. ____ (2006)


extends beyond mere identification, however;

“in any case where such a legal liability is found to ex-

ist after medical assistance has been made available

on behalf of the individual and where the amount of

reimbursement the State can reasonably expect to re-

cover exceeds the costs of such recovery, the State or

local agency will seek reimbursement for such assis-

tance to the extent of such legal liability.”

§1396a(a)(25)(B).

To facilitate its reimbursement from liable third parties,

the State must,

“to the extent that payment has been made under the

State plan for medical assistance in any case where a

third party has a legal liability to make payment for

such assistance, [have] in effect laws under which, to

the extent that payment has been made under the

State plan for medical assistance for health care items

or services furnished to an individual, the State is

considered to have acquired the rights of such indi-

vidual to payment by any other party for such health

care items or services.” §1396a(a)(25)(H).

The obligation to enact assignment laws is reiterated in

another provision of the SSA, which reads as follows:

“(a) For the purpose of assisting in the collection of

medical support payments and other payments for

medical care owed to recipients of medical assistance

under the State plan approved under this subchapter,

a State plan for medical assistance shall—

“(1) provide that, as a condition of eligibility for

medical assistance under the State plan to an indi-

——————

program that is or may be liable to pay all or part of the expendituresfor medical assistance furnished under a State plan.” 42 CFR §433.136

(2005).




Opinion of the Courtvidual who has the legal capacity to execute an as-

signment for himself, the individual is required—

“(A) to assign the State any rights . . . to support

(specified as support for the purpose of medical care

by a court or administrative order) and to payment for

medical care from any third party;

“(B) to cooperate with the State . . . in obtaining

support and payments (described in paragraph (A))

for himself . . . ; and

“(C) to cooperate with the State in identifying, and

providing information to assist the State in pursuing,

any third party who may be liable to pay for care andservices available under the plan . . . .” §1396k(a).

Finally, “any amount collected by the State under an

assignment made” as described above “shall be retained by

the State as is necessary to reimburse it for medical assis-

tance payments made on behalf of” the Medicaid recipient.

§1396k(b). “[T]he remainder of such amount collected

shall be paid” to the recipient. Ibid.

Acting pursuant to its understanding of these third-

party liability provisions, the State of Arkansas passed

laws that purport to allow both ADHS and the Medicaid

recipient, either independently or together, to recover “thecost of benefits” from third parties. Ark. Code Ann. §§20–

77–301 through 20–77–309 (2001). Initially, “[a]s a condi-

tion of eligibility” for Medicaid, an applicant “shall auto-

matically assign his or her right to any settlement, judg-

ment, or award which may be obtained against any third

party to [ADHS] to the full extent of any amount which

may be paid by Medicaid for the benefit of the applicant.”

§20–77–307(a). Accordingly, “[w]hen medical assistance

benefits are provided” to the recipient “because of injury,

disease, or disability for which another person is liable,”

ADHS “shall have a right to recover from the person the



7Cite as: 547 U. S. ____ (2006)


cost of benefits so provided.” §20–77–301(a).5 ADHS’ suit

“shall” not, however, “be a bar to any action upon the

claim or cause of action of the recipient.” §20–77–301(b).

Indeed, the statute envisions that the recipient will some-

times sue together with ADHS, see §20–77–303, or even

alone. If the latter, the assignment described in §20–77–

307(a) “shall be considered a statutory lien on any settle-

ment, judgment, or award received . . . from a third party.”

§20–77–307(c); see also §20–77–302(a) (“When an action or

claim is brought by a medical assistance recipient . . . , any

settlement, judgment, or award obtained is subject to the

division’s claim for reimbursement of the benefits providedto the recipient under the medical assistance program”).6

The State, through this statute, claims an entitlement

to more than just that portion of a judgment or settlement

that represents payment for medical expenses. It claims a

right to recover the entirety of the costs it paid on the

Medicaid recipient’s behalf. Accordingly, if, for example, a

recipient sues alone and settles her entire action against a

third-party tortfeasor for $20,000, and ADHS has paid

that amount or more to medical providers on her behalf,

ADHS gets the whole settlement and the recipient is left

with nothing. This is so even when the parties to thesettlement allocate damages between medical costs, on the

one hand, and other injuries like lost wages, on the other.

——————

5 Under the Arkansas statute, ADHS’ right to recover medical costs

appears to be broader than that of the recipient. When ADHS sues, “no

contributory or comparative fault of a recipient shall be attributed to

the state, nor shall any restitution awarded to the state be denied or

reduced by any amount or percentage of fault attributed to a recipient.”

§20–77–301(d)(1) (2001).6 The Arkansas Supreme Court has held that ADHS has an inde-

pendent, nonderivative right to recover the cost of benefits from a third-

party tortfeasor under §20–77–301 even when the Medicaid recipient

also sues for recovery of medical expenses. See National Bank of Commerce v. Quirk, 323 Ark. 769, 792–794, 918 S. W. 2d 138, 151–152

(1996).




Opinion of the CourtThe same rule also would apply, it seems, if the recovery

were the result not of a settlement but of a jury verdict. In

that case, under the Arkansas statute, ADHS could re-

cover the full $20,000 in the face of a jury allocation of,

say, only $10,000 for medical expenses.7

That this is what the Arkansas statute requires has

been confirmed by the State’s Supreme Court. In Arkan-

sas Dept. of Human Servs. v. Ferrel, 336 Ark. 297, 984

S. W. 2d 807 (1999), the court refused to endorse an equi-

table, nontextual interpretation of the statute. Rejecting a

Medicaid recipient’s argument that he ought to retain

some of a settlement that was insufficient to cover both hisand Medicaid’s expenses, the court explained:

“Given the clear, unambiguous language of the stat-

ute, it is apparent that the legislature intended that

ADHS’s ability to recoup Medicaid payments from

third parties or recipients not be restricted by equita-

ble subrogation principles such as the ‘made whole’

rule stated in [Franklin v. Healthsource of Arkansas,

328 Ark. 163, 942 S. W. 2d 837 (1997)]. By creating

an automatic legal assignment which expressly be-

comes a statutory lien, [Ark. Code Ann. §20–77–307

(1991)] makes an unequivocal statement that the ADHS’s ability to recover Medicaid payments from in-

surance settlements, if it so chooses, is superior to

that of the recipient even when the settlement does

not pay all the recipient’s medical costs.” Id., at 308,

984 S. W. 2d, at 811.

Accordingly, the Arkansas statute, if enforceable against

Ahlborn, authorizes imposition of a lien on her settlement

proceeds in the amount of $215,645.30. Ahlborn’s argu-

——————

7

ADHS denies that it would actually demand the full $20,000 in sucha case, see Brief for Petitioners 49, n. 13, but points to no provision of

the Arkansas statute that would prevent it from doing so.





9Cite as: 547 U. S. ____ (2006)


ment before the District Court, the Eighth Circuit, and

this Court has been that Arkansas law goes too far. We

agree. Arkansas’ statute finds no support in the federal

third-party liability provisions, and in fact squarely con-

flicts with the anti-lien provision of the federal Medicaid

laws.

III

We must decide whether ADHS can lay claim to more

than the portion of Ahlborn’s settlement that represents

medical expenses.8 The text of the federal third-party

liability provisions suggests not; it focuses on recovery of payments for medical care. Medicaid recipients must, as a

condition of eligibility, “assign the State any rights . . . to

payment for medical care from any third party,” 42

U. S. C. §1396k(a) (1)(A) (emphasis added), not rights to

payment for, for example, lost wages. The other statutory

language that ADHS relies upon is not to the contrary;

indeed, it reinforces the limitation implicit in the assign-

ment provision.

First, ADHS points to §1396a(a)(25)(B)’s requirement

that States “seek reimbursement for [medical] assistance

to the extent of such legal liability” (emphasis added) and

suggests that this means that the entirety of a recipient’s

settlement is fair game. In fact, as is evident from the

context of the emphasized language, “such legal liability”

refers to “the legal liability of third parties . . . to pay for

care and services available under the plan.”

§1396a(a)(25)(A) (emphasis added). Here, the tortfeasor

——————

8 The parties here assume, as do we, that a State can fulfill its obliga-

tions under the federal third-party liability provisions by requiring an

“assignment” of part of, or placing a lien on, the settlement that a

Medicaid recipient procures on her own. Cf. §§1396k(a)(B)–(C) (the

recipient has a duty to identify liable third parties and to “provid[e]information to assist the State in pursuing ” those parties (emphasis

added)).



10 ARKANSAS DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVS. v.

AHLBORN


has accepted liability for only one-sixth of the recipient’s

overall damages, and ADHS has stipulated that only

$35,581.47 of that sum represents compensation for medi-

cal expenses. Under the circumstances, the relevant

“liability” extends no further than that amount.9

Second, ADHS argues that the language of

§1396a(a)(25)(H) favors its view that it can demand full

reimbursement of its costs from Ahlborn’s settlement.

That provision, which echoes the requirement of a manda-

tory assignment of rights in §1396k(a), says that the State

must have in effect laws that, “to the extent that payment

has been made under the State plan for medical assistancefor health care items or services furnished to an individ-

ual,” give the State the right to recover from liable third

parties. This must mean, says ADHS, that the agency’s

recovery is limited only by the amount it paid out on the

recipient’s behalf—and not by the third-party tortfeasor’s

particular liability for medical expenses. But that reading

ignores the rest of the provision, which makes clear that

the State must be assigned “the rights of [the recipient] to

payment by any other party for such health care items or

services.” §1396a(a)(25)(H) (emphasis added). Again, the

statute does not sanction an assignment of rights to pay-ment for anything other than medical expenses—not lost

wages, not pain and suffering, not an inheritance.

Finally, ADHS points to the provision requiring that,

where the State actively pursues recovery from the third

party, Medicaid be reimbursed fully from “any amount

collected by the State under an assignment” before “the

remainder of such amount collected” is remitted to the

recipient. §1396k(b). In ADHS’ view, this shows that the

——————

9 The effect of the stipulation is the same as if a trial judge had found

that Ahlborn’s damages amounted to $3,040,708.12 (of which$215,645.30 were for medical expenses), but because of her contributory

negligence, she could only recover one-sixth of those damages.



11Cite as: 547 U. S. ____ (2006)


State must be paid in full from any settlement. See Brief

for Petitioners 13. But, even assuming the provision

applies in cases where the State does not actively partici-

pate in the litigation, ADHS’ conclusion rests on a false

premise: The “amount recovered . . . under an assignment”

is not, as ADHS assumes, the entire settlement; as ex-

plained above, under the federal statute the State’s as-

signed rights extend only to recovery of payments for

medical care. Accordingly, what §1396k(b) requires is that

the State be paid first out of any damages representing

payments for medical care before the recipient can recover

any of her own costs for medical care.10

At the very least, then, the federal third-party liabilityprovisions require an assignment of no more than theright to recover that portion of a settlement that repre-sents payments for medical care.11 They did not mandate

——————

10 Implicit in ADHS’ interpretation of this provision is the assumption

that there can be no “remainder” to remit to the Medicaid recipient if

all the State has been assigned is the right to damages for medical

expenses. That view in turn seems to rest on an assumption either that

Medicaid will have paid all the recipient’s medical expenses or that

Medicaid’s expenses will always exceed the portion of any third-party

recovery earmarked for medical expenses. Neither assumption holdsup. First, as both the Solicitor General and CMS acknowledge, the

recipient often will have paid medical expenses out of her own pocket.

See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 12 (under §1396k(b), “the

beneficiary retains the right to payment for any additional medical

expenses personally incurred either before or subsequent to Medicaid

eligibility and for other damages”); CMS, State Medicaid Manual §3907

(last modified Sept. 16, 2005) (envisioning that “medical insurance

payments,” for example, will be remitted to the recipient if possible).

Second, even if Medicaid’s outlays often exceed the portion of the

recovery earmarked for medical expenses in tort cases, the third-party

liability provisions were not drafted exclusively with tort settlements in

mind. In the case of health insurance, for example, the funds available

under the policy may be enough to cover both Medicaid’s costs and the

recipient’s own medical expenses.11 ADHS concedes that, had a jury or judge allocated a sum for medi-

cal payments out of a larger award in this case, the agency would be




AHLBORN


the enactment of the Arkansas scheme that we havedescribed.

IV

If there were no other relevant provisions in the federalstatute, the State might plausibly argue that federal lawsupplied a recovery “floor” upon which States were free tobuild. In fact, though, the federal statute places expresslimits on the State’s powers to pursue recovery of funds itpaid on the recipient’s behalf. These limitations are con-tained in 42 U. S. C. §§1396a(a)(18) and 1396p. Section1396a(a)(18) requires that a State Medicaid plan complywith §1396p, which in turn prohibits States (except incircumstances not relevant here) from placing liensagainst, or seeking recovery of benefits paid from, a Medi-caid recipient:

“(a) Imposition of lien against property of an indi-vidual on account of medical assistance rendered tohim under a State plan

“(1) No lien may be imposed against the property of any individual prior to his death on account of medicalassistance paid or to be paid on his behalf under theState plan, except—

“(A) pursuant to the judgment of a court on accountof benefits incorrectly paid on behalf of such individ-ual, or

“(B) [in certain circumstances not relevant here]. . . .

——————

entitled to reimburse itself only from the portion so allocated. See Brief

for Petitioners 49, n. 13; see also Brief for United States as Amicus

Curiae 22, n. 14 (noting that the Secretary of HHS “ordinarily accepts”

a jury allocation of medical damages in satisfaction of the Medicaid

debt, even where smaller than the amount of Medicaid’s expenses).

Given the stipulation between ADHS and Ahlborn, there is no textual

basis for treating the settlement here differently from a judge-allocated

settlement or even a jury award; all such awards typically establish athird party’s “liability” for both “payment for medical care” and other

heads of damages.



13Cite as: 547 U. S. ____ (2006)


“(b) Adjustment or recovery of medical assistance

correctly paid under a State plan

“(1) No adjustment or recovery of any medical assis-

tance correctly paid on behalf of an individual under

the State plan may be made, except [in circumstances

not relevant here].” §1396p.

Read literally and in isolation, the anti-lien prohibition

contained in §1396p(a) would appear to ban even a lien on

that portion of the settlement proceeds that represents

payments for medical care.12 Ahlborn does not ask us to

go so far, though; she assumes that the State’s lien isconsistent with federal law insofar as it encumbers pro-

ceeds designated as payments for medical care. Her ar-

gument, rather, is that the anti-lien provision precludes

attachment or encumbrance of the remainder of the

settlement.

We agree. There is no question that the State can re-

quire an assignment of the right, or chose in action, to

receive payments for medical care. So much is expressly

provided for by §§1396a(a)(25) and 1396k(a). And we

assume, as do the parties, that the State can also demand

as a condition of Medicaid eligibility that the recipient“assign” in advance any payments that may constitute

reimbursement for medical costs. To the extent that the

forced assignment is expressly authorized by the terms of

§§1396a(a)(25) and 1396k(a), it is an exception to the anti-

——————

12 Likewise, subsection (b) would appear to forestall any attempt by

the State to recover benefits paid, at least from the “individual.” See,

e.g., Martin ex rel. Hoff v. Rochester, 642 N. W. 2d 1, 8, n. 6 (Minn.

2002); Wallace v. Estate of Jackson, 972 P. 2d 446, 450 (Utah 1998)

(Durham, J., dissenting) (reading §1396p to “prohibi[t] not only liens

against Medicaid recipients but also any recovery for medical assis-

tance correctly paid”). The parties here, however, neither cite nordiscuss the anti-recovery provision of §1396p(b). Accordingly, we leave

for another day the question of its impact on the analysis.




AHLBORN


lien provision. See Washington State Dept. of Social and

Health Servs. v. Guardianship Estate of Keffeler, 537 U. S.

371, 383–385, and n. 7 (2003). But that does not mean that

the State can force an assignment of, or place a lien on,

any other portion of Ahlborn’s property. As explained

above, the exception carved out by §§1396a(a)(25) and

1396k(a) is limited to payments for medical care. Beyond

that, the anti-lien provision applies.

ADHS tries to avoid the anti-lien provision by character-

izing the settlement proceeds as not Ahlborn’s “prop-

erty.”13 Its argument appears to be that the automatic

assignment effected by the Arkansas statute rendered the

proceeds the property of the State.14 See Brief for Peti-

tioners 31 (“[U]nder Arkansas law, the lien does not attach

to the recipient’s ‘property’ because it attaches only to

those proceeds already assigned to the Department as a

condition of Medicaid eligibility”). That argument fails for

two reasons. First, ADHS insists that Ahlborn at all

times until judgment retained her entire chose in action—

a right that included her claim for medical damages. The

statutory lien, then, cannot have attached until the pro-

ceeds materialized. That much is clear from the text of

the Arkansas statute, which says that the “assignmentshall be considered a statutory lien on any settlement . . .

received by the recipient from a third party.” Ark. Code

Ann. §20–77–307(c) (2001) (emphasis added). The settle- ——————

13 “Property” is defined by regulation as “the homestead and all other

personal and real property in which the recipient has a legal interest.”

42 CFR §433.36(b) (2005).14 The United States as amicus curiae makes the different argument

that the proceeds never became Ahlborn’s “property” because “to the

extent the third party’s payment passes through the recipient’s hands

en route to the State, it comes with the State’s lien already attached.”

Brief as Amicus Curiae 18. Even if that reading were consistent with

the Arkansas statute (and it is not, see infra, at 16), the United States’characterization of the “assignment” simply reinforces Ahlborn’s point:

This is a lien that attaches to the property of the recipient.



15Cite as: 547 U. S. ____ (2006)


ment is not “received” until the chose in action has been

reduced to proceeds in Ahlborn’s possession. Accordingly,

the assertion that any of the proceeds belonged to the

State all along lacks merit.

Second, the State’s argument that Ahlborn lost her

property rights in the proceeds the instant she applied for

medical assistance is inconsistent with the creation of a

statutory lien on those proceeds. Why, after all, would

ADHS need a lien on its own property? A lien typically is

imposed on the property of another for payment of a debt

owed by that other. See Black’s Law Dictionary 922 (6th

ed. 1990). Nothing in the Arkansas statute defines theterm otherwise.

That the lien is also called an “assignment” does not

alter the analysis. The terms that Arkansas employs to

describe the mechanism by which it lays claim to the

settlement proceeds do not, by themselves, tell us whether

the statute violates the anti-lien provision. See United

States v. Craft, 535 U. S. 274, 279 (2002); Drye v. United

States, 528 U. S. 49, 58–61 (1999). Although denominated

an “assignment,” the effect of the statute here was not to

divest Ahlborn of all her property interest; instead, Ahl-

born retained the right to sue for medical care payments,and the State asserted a right to the fruits of that suit

once they materialized. In effect, and as at least some of

the statutory language recognizes, Arkansas has imposed

a lien on Ahlborn’s property.15 Since none of the federal ——————

15 Because ADHS insists that “Arkansas law did not require Ahlborn

to assign her claim or her right to sue,” Brief for Petitioners 33 (empha-

sis in original), we need not reach the question whether a State may

force a recipient to assign a chose in action to receive as much of the

settlement as is necessary to pay Medicaid’s costs. The Eighth Circuit

thought this would be impermissible because the State cannot “circum-

vent the restrictions of the federal anti-lien statute simply by requiring

an applicant for Medicaid benefits to assign property rights to the Statebefore the applicant liquidates the property to a sum certain.” App. to

Pet. for Cert. 6. Indeed, ADHS acknowledges that Arkansas cannot, for




AHLBORN


third-party liability provisions excepts that lien from

operation of the anti-lien provision, its imposition violates

federal law.

V

ADHS and its amici urge, however, that even if a lien on

more than medical damages would violate federal law in

some cases, a rule permitting such a lien ought to apply

here either because Ahlborn breached her duty to “cooper-

ate” with ADHS or because there is an inherent danger of

manipulation in cases where the parties to a tort case

settle without judicial oversight or input from the State.Neither argument is persuasive.

The United States proposes a default rule of full reim-

bursement whenever the recipient breaches her duty to

“cooperate,” and asserts that Ahlborn in fact breached that

duty.16 But, even if the Government’s allegations of ob-

struction were supported by the record, its conception of

the duty to cooperate strays far beyond the text of the

statute and the relevant regulations. The duty to cooper-

ate arises principally, if not exclusively, in proceedings

initiated by the State to recover from third parties. See 42

U. S. C. §1396k(a)(1)(C) (recipients must “cooperate with

——————

example, require a Medicaid applicant to assign in advance any right

she may have to recover an inheritance or an award in a civil case not

related to her injuries or medical care. This arguably is no different; as

with assignment of those other choses in action, assignment of the right

to compensation for lost wages and other nonmedical damages is

nowhere authorized by the federal third-party liability provisions.16 See, e.g., Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 14 (alleging that

Ahlborn “omitt[ed] or understat[ed] the medical damages claim from

her lawsuit and attempt[ed] to horde for herself the third-party liability

payments”); id., at 15 (“[H]aving forsaken her federal and state statu-

tory duties of candid and forthcoming cooperation . . . [,] respondent,

rather than the taxpayers, must bear the financial consequences of her

actions”); id., at 21, 24 (referring to Ahlborn’s “backdoor settlement”and “obstruction and attrition,” as well as her “calculated evasion of her

legal obligations”).



17Cite as: 547 U. S. ____ (2006)


the State in identifying . . . and providing information to

assist the State in pursuing” third parties). Most of the

accompanying federal regulations simply echo this basic

duty; all they add is that the recipient must “[p]ay to the

agency any support or medical care funds received that

are covered by the assignment of rights.” 42 CFR

§433.147(b)(4) (2005).

In any event, the aspersions the United States casts

upon Ahlborn are entirely unsupported; all the record

reveals is that ADHS, despite having intervened in the

lawsuit and asked to be apprised of any hearings, neither

asked to be nor was involved in the settlement negotia-tions. Whatever the bounds of the duty to cooperate, there

is no evidence that it was breached here.

ADHS’ and the United States’ alternative argument

that a rule of full reimbursement is needed generally to

avoid the risk of settlement manipulation is more color-

able, but ultimately also unpersuasive. The issue is not, of

course, squarely presented here; ADHS has stipulated

that only $35,581.47 of Ahlborn’s settlement proceeds

properly are designated as payments for medical costs.

Even in the absence of such a post-settlement agreement,

though, the risk that parties to a tort suit will allocateaway the State’s interest can be avoided either by obtain-

ing the State’s advance agreement to an allocation or, if

necessary, by submitting the matter to a court for deci-

sion.17 For just as there are risks in underestimating the

value of readily calculable damages in settlement negotia-

tions, so also is there a countervailing concern that a rule

——————

17 As one amicus observes, some States have adopted special rules

and procedures for allocating tort settlements in circumstances where,

for example, private insurers’ rights to recovery are at issue. See Brief

for Association of Trial Lawyers of America 20–21. Although we

express no view on the matter, we leave open the possibility that suchrules and procedures might be employed to meet concerns about set-

tlement manipulation.




AHLBORN


of absolute priority might preclude settlement in a large

number of cases, and be unfair to the recipient in others.18

VI

Finally, ADHS contends that the Court of Appeals’

decision below accords insufficient weight to two decisions

by the Departmental Appeals Board of HHS (Board) re-

jecting appeals by the States of California and Washington

from denial of reimbursement for costs those States paid

on behalf of Medicaid recipients who had settled tort

claims. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 45–67 (reproducing In re

Washington State Dept. of Social & Health Servs., Dec. No.1561, 1996 WL 157123 (HHS Dept. App. Bd., Feb. 7,

1996)); App. to Pet. for Cert. 68–86 (reproducing In re

California Dept. of Health Servs., Dec. No. 1504, 1995 WL

66334 (HHS Dept. App. Bd., Jan. 5, 1995)). Because the

opinions in those cases address a different question from

the one posed here, make no mention of the anti-lien

provision, and, in any event, rest on a questionable con-

struction of the federal third-party liability provisions, we

conclude that they do not control our analysis.

Normally, if a State recovers from a third party the cost

of Medicaid benefits paid on behalf of a recipient, the

Federal Government owes the State no reimbursement,

and any funds already paid by the Federal Government

must be returned. See 42 CFR §433.140(a)(2) (2005)

(federal financial participation “is not available in Medi-

——————

18 The point is illustrated by state cases involving the recovery of

workers’ compensation benefits paid to an employee (or the family of an

employee) whose injuries were caused by a third-party tortfeasor. In

Flanigan v. Department of Labor and Industry, 123 Wash. 2d 418, 869

P. 2d 14 (1994), for example, the court concluded that the state agency

could not satisfy its lien out of damages the injured worker’s spouse

recovered as compensation for loss of consortium. The court explained

that the department could not “share in damages for which it hasprovided no compensation” because such a result would be “absurd and

fundamentally unjust.” Id., at 426, 869 P. 2d, at 17.



19Cite as: 547 U. S. ____ (2006)


caid payments if . . . [t]he agency received reimbursement

from a liable third party”); §433.140(c). Washington and

California both had adopted schemes according to which

the State refrained from claiming full reimbursement from

tort settlements and instead took only a portion of each

settlement. (In California, the recipient typically could

keep at least 50% of her settlement, see App. to Pet. for

Cert. 72; in Washington, the proportion varied from case

to case, see id., at 48–51.) Each scheme resulted in the

State’s having to pay a portion of the recipient’s medical

costs—a portion for which the State sought partial reim-

bursement from the Federal Government. CMS (thencalled HCFA) denied this partial reimbursement on the

ground that the States had an absolute duty to seek full

payment of medical expenses from third-party tortfeasors.

The Board upheld CMS’ determinations. In California’s

appeal, which came first, the Board concluded that the

State’s duty to seek recovery of benefits “from available

third party sources to the fullest extent possible” included

demanding full reimbursement from the entire proceeds of

a Medicaid recipient’s tort settlement. Id., at 76. The

Board acknowledged that §1396k(a) “refers to assignment

only of ‘payment for medical care,’” but thought that “thestatutory scheme as a whole contemplates that the actual

recovery might be greater and, if it is, that Medicaid

should be paid first.” Ibid. The Board gave two other

reasons for siding with CMS: First, the legislative history

of the third-party liability evinced a congressional intent

that “the Medicaid program . . . be reimbursed from avail-

able third party sources to the fullest extent possible,”

ibid.; and, second, California had long been on notice that

it would not be reimbursed for any shortfall resulting from

failure to fully recoup Medicaid’s costs from tort settle-

ments, see id., at 77. The Board also opined that the State

could not escape its duty to seek full reimbursement byrelying on the Medicaid recipient’s efforts in litigating her




AHLBORN


claims. See id., at 79–80.

Finally, responding to the State’s argument that its

scheme gave Medicaid recipients incentives to sue third-

party tortfeasors and thus resulted in both greater recov-

ery and lower costs for the State, the Board observed that

“a state is free to allow recipients to retain the state’s

share” of any recovery, so long as it does not compromise

the Federal Government’s share. Id., at 85.

The Board reached the same conclusion, by the same

means, in the Washington case. See id., at 53–64.

Neither of these adjudications compels us to conclude

that Arkansas’ statutory lien comports with federal law.First, the Board’s rulings address a different question

from the one presented here. The Board was concerned

with the Federal Government’s obligation to reimburse

States that had, in its view, failed to seek full recovery of

Medicaid’s costs and had instead relied on recipients to act

as private attorneys general. The Board neither discussed

nor even so much as cited the federal anti-lien provision.

Second, the Board’s acknowledgment that the assign-

ment of rights required by §1396k(a) is limited to pay-

ments for medical care only reinforces the clarity of the

statutory language. Moreover, its resort to “the statutoryscheme as a whole” as justification for muddying that

clarity is nowhere explained. Given that the only statu-

tory provisions CMS relied on are §§1396a(a)(25),

1396k(a), and 1396k(b), see id., at 75–76; id., at 54–55,

and given the Board’s concession that the first two of these

limit the State’s assignment to payments for medical care,

the “statutory scheme” must mean §1396k(b). But that

provision does not authorize the State to demand reim-

bursement from portions of the settlement allocated or

allocable to nonmedical damages; instead, it gives the

State a priority disbursement from the medical expenses

portion alone. See supra, at 12. In fact, in its adjudicationin the Washington case, the Board conceded as much:



21Cite as: 547 U. S. ____ (2006)


“[CMS] may require a state to assert a collection priority

over funds obtained by Medicaid recipients in [third-party

liability] suits even though the distribution methodology

set forth in section [1396k(b)] refers only to payments col-

lected pursuant to assignments for medical care.” App. to

Pet. for Cert. 54 (emphasis added). The Board’s reasoning

therefore is internally inconsistent.

Third, the Board’s reliance on legislative history is

misplaced. The Board properly observed that Congress, in

crafting the Medicaid legislation, intended that Medicaid

be a “payer of last resort.” S. Rep. No. 99–146, p. 313

(1985). That does not mean, however, that Congressmeant to authorize States to seek reimbursement from

Medicaid recipients themselves; in fact, with the possible

exception of a lien on payments for medical care, the

statute expressly prohibits liens against the property of

Medicaid beneficiaries. See 42 U. S. C. §1396p(a). We

recognize that Congress has delegated “broad regulatory

authority to the Secretary [of HHS] in the Medicaid area,”

Wisconsin Dept. of Health and Family Servs. v. Blumer, 534

U. S. 473, 496, n. 13 (2002), and that agency adjudications

typically warrant deference. Here, however, the Board’s

reasoning couples internal inconsistency with a consciousdisregard for the statutory text. Under these circumstances,

we decline to treat the agency’s reasoning as controlling.

VII

Federal Medicaid law does not authorize ADHS to as-

sert a lien on Ahlborn’s settlement in an amount exceed-

ing $35,581.47, and the federal anti-lien provision affirma-

tively prohibits it from doing so. Arkansas’ third-party

liability provisions are unenforceable insofar as they

compel a different conclusion. The judgment of the Court

of Appeals is affirmed.

It is so ordered.



Documents

US Supreme Court: 04-1506